|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 771 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1805
... ...
... ... ..... partment has filed the Misc. Applications to get the order of the Tribunal dated 11.07.2012 reviewed and no mistake has been pointed out in the order of the Tribunal dated 11.07.2012 in their Misc. Applications. Accordingly, the Ld. counsel for the assessees prayed to dismiss the Misc. Applications filed by the Revenue. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. At the outset, the Department has filed the Misc. Applications, as mentioned in the said applications is reproduced hereinabove, for fresh adjudication of the issue and to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT to decide the issue de novo. No mistake has been pointed out anywhere in the said applications. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the Misc. Applications filed in both the cases are rejected. 5. In the result, the M.A. Nos. 33 & 34(Asr)/2013 filed by the assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th November., 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1801
... ...
... ... ..... specific item in the books of account and the assessee also clarified to the assessing officer in the original assessment. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the required details for completing the assessment. Therefore, the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Alappat Jewels (supra) may not be relevant to the facts of this case. Since there was no negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the particulars with regard to partners’ capital account and current account and other details, proviso to section 147 would be applicable to the facts of the present case and hence, reopening of assessment after expiry fo four years is not permissible. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1797
... ...
... ... ..... io comes to 5.88% and in the case of post-search period the GP ratio comes to 13.24% as compared to the GP ratio of 13.82% for the full year pertaining to last year. The learned CIT(A) observed that low GP ratio during pre-search period is covered by the disclosure of ₹ 2.10 crores made during the course of search and inspite of slight decline in the GP rate in the postsearch period compared to the last year, the CIT(A) found that proportionate increase in the cost of raw material was more than the proportionate increase in the sale price, and therefore, slight decline was justified. In the absence of any material being brought on record before us, to controvert the above findings of the learned CIT(A), we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1794
... ...
... ... ..... on that even if it is not a business income, it has to be treated as 'income from other sources' is without any substance because, the facts of this case, recitals of the lease Deed, the schedule to the Lease Deed and the property which is leased makes it very clear that the income derived from them by way of rental income cannot be construed as 'income from other sources', but as the 'income from house property' only. As rightly pointed by the Tribunal, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of certain deductions in respect of rental income from house property that has not been extended by the assessing authority. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the assessing authority to give the benefit of said deductions after treating the income as 'income from house property'. The law on the point is well settled and therefore, no substantial question of law did arise for consideration in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1792
... ...
... ... ..... ld by Tribunal vide its order dated 03-02-2012, by observing as under - “7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee had made the payment of interest on the delayed payment of installments payable by the assessee to MCGM for the office premises. The assessee had not raised any borrowings on which interest is payable. Therefore, there is no question of diversion of interest bearing funds to interest free advances. In the circumstances and facts of the case, we find no error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee by reversing the order of Assessing Officer on the issue. Thus, ground No. 2 of the Revenue is dismissed.” We feel no need to interfere with the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 8. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (11) TMI 1788
... ...
... ... ..... ot, can the order be recalled for fresh adjudication under section 254(2) under which, no debatable issues can be considered.” 4. At the time of hearing the learned Third Member reframed the question which reads as under - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal dated 30-5-2012 passed u/s 254(1) can be recalled for a fresh decision in the proceedings u/s 254(2)?” 5. In his opinion the said question deserves to be answered in the affirmative by holding that the order of the Tribunal dated 30.05.2012 passed under section 254(1) of the Act should be recalled for de novo adjudication. 6. In view of the majority we hereby recall the order dated 30.05.2012 and direct the Registry to post the appeal for fresh hearing on 18.03.2014. Pronounced accordingly in the open court. 7. The Registry is directed to inform the parties with regard to the fresh date of hearing. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1786
... ...
... ... ..... of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. Further, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee that the issue should be restored back to the file of the learned AO for readjudicating the same after considering amendments made by the Finance Act, 2012 that if the payee pays the tax on the amount paid by the assessee to him by showing the receipts as its income, then no disallowance of expenditure can be made in the hands of the assessee under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, we remand the matter back to the file of the AO to re-adjudicate the issue afresh as per the law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file necessary evidence as and when called upon to do so by the AO. Thus, this ground of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1785
... ...
... ... ..... landlord as compensation is revenue receipt?? We are not inclined to frame any substantial question of law on the rate of depreciation on computer peripherals as the issue is covered against the Revenue by decision of this Court in ITA 1266/2010, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. We are also not inclined to frame any question on interest paid on the income tax refund as the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue and the question of law has been wrongly raised on the said aspect. Filing of printed paper books is dispensed with. However, parties are given liberty to file documents/papers, which were filed before the authorities/tribunal We find that the substantial question of law number (i) is being raised in large number of cases and it is desirable and necessary that the said question is answered at the earliest to avoid repetitive appeals and to ensure clarity. To be shown in the ?Regular List (Part-IIA)? in the week commencing24th February, 2014.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1784
... ...
... ... ..... Special Bench is naturally binding on the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The above view taken by the Special Bench has been approved by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax And Another v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98). Moreover, in assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year, ITAT, Chennai, has held that the foreign currency expenses need not be reduced from the export turnover. It means that if so reduced, corresponding deduction must be made from total turnover as well. As the issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee, we find that there is no reason to interfere in the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. 20. The order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is upheld on both the issues raised in the present appeal. 21. In result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 20th of November, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1782
... ...
... ... ..... assessee just received the post dated cheques to protect its interest in the MOU, the same cannot be brought to tax. It is evident from the material on record that it is only the signing of the MOU and the receipt of the post dated cheques that have taken place during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09, and there is nothing on record to indicate any sum or benefit having been actually received or receivable by the assessee on account of the transactions made by Sai Surya Realtors in terms of the said MOU. In the circumstances, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee actually receives any sum or benefit or when any right crystalises in favour of the assessee to receive any sum or benefit in terms of the said MOU, the same may be brought to tax by the Revenue authorities in the relevant year. 31. In the result, while assessee's appeal is allowed, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 29.11.2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1781
... ...
... ... ..... Hon’ble Kerala High Court brings in a cleavage of opinion on the issue where there was otherwise a unity among other High Courts on this issue. It is trite law when there is a cleavage of opinion on an issue between various High Courts, till such time the jurisdictional High Court has taken an adverse view, this Tribunal can elect to follow the view in favour of the assessee. We are of the opinion that Ld.CIT(A) was justified in directing the A.O. to consider the claim of depreciation as a part of utilization of the assessee.” 11. The Revenue could not controvert the above findings of the Tribunal and the ld. DR has fairly accepted the decision of the Tribunal. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 20th of November, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1780
... ...
... ... ..... 5. The learned D.R. also admitted that the issue involved in the aforecited orders of the ITAT are identical. 6. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) who is directed to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the lines indicated in the aforementioned orders. 7. It deserves to be noticed that the assessee filed additional ground alongwith letter dated 31st October, 2013 wherein it was contended that the income assessed by the AO ought to have been taxed in the hands of Shri Harshad S. Mehta and not in the hands of the assessee. However, at the time of hearing the learned counsel admitted that this additional ground was wrongly raised and it has no substance. Under these circumstances we reject the additional ground. 8. In the result, as pronounced in the open court, the appeal filed by the assessee company is treated as partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1779
... ...
... ... ..... n given by the parents to Smt. Saran Kaur at the time of marriage. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao relied on the decision of the ACIT vs. Yash Devendra Vayla ITA.No.652/Ahd/2010 assessment year 2007-2008 dated 19.04.2013. 8. We have heard both the parties. Since we cannot say with certainty that the jewellery cannot be shared by the family members and hence, there cannot be jewellery which is common for the family. Giving the benefit of doubt to the assessee and also relying on the circular of the CBDT 1916, we allow 1300 grams of gold taking into account that there are 5 family members and with respect to the balance 223.8 grams, we direct the Assessing Officer to apply the principle of telescoping of unexplained investment against the income of the assessee group and determine the taxable income accordingly. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.11.2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1778
... ...
... ... ..... of depreciation. “ No doubt, the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court was not considered by the Co-ordinate Bench. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Ld. A.R. at the best, the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court brings in a cleavage of opinion on the issue where there was otherwise a unity among other High Courts on this issue. It is trite law when there is a cleavage of opinion on an issue between various High Courts, till such time the jurisdictional High Court has taken an adverse view, this Tribunal can elect to follow the view in favour of the assessee. We are of the opinion that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the A.O. to consider the claim of depreciation as a part of utilization of the assessee.” 7. Following the decision of the Tribunal cited supra, which is squarely covered on the issue, we hereby confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 6th November, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1777
... ...
... ... ..... lature amends the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment. In the present case, the reopening has been made after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant previous year. Therefore, on this ground itself, the impugned assessment is not sustainable in law. 5. Secondly, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports & Others vs. CIT (348 ITR 391) has held that retrospective amendment is not valid in law. 6. Therefore, there is no justification for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for the purpose of bringing the DEPB/DFRC sale proceeds to taxation. The orders of the lower authorities in this regard are set aside. 7. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Monday, the 18th of November, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1776
... ...
... ... ..... sing authority while passing the order of first block assessment year excluded from the purview of undisclosed income. When the premises was searched on 27-4-2001, the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act was expired. This income was already reflected in the books of accounts which was noticed on the first search itself, but the assessee had not filed the same under section 139(4) of the Act. Admittedly, in the return filed under section 139(4) on 31-1-2002, within the due date, the said amount was disclosed. Therefore, the contention that it constitutes an undisclosed income, as it was not disclosed in the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act is unacceptable and that is precisely what the Tribunal has held. 13. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merits in the appeals and the same stand dismissed. The substantial question of law in both the appeals is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1775
... ...
... ... ..... contention of the assessee before us also that the assessee has not only declared additional income of ₹ 37.15 lakhs but also paid tax on it. Therefore, when the assessee had declared the additional income of ₹ 37.15 lakhs and paid tax on it during the assessment proceedings, there is no question of making addition over again of the said amount of ₹ 37.15 lakhs. Accordingly, in our view the CIT (A) was correct in sustaining the addition of ₹ 14.20 lakhs out of the total amount of ₹ 51,35,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the grounds raised by the department are dismissed. 45. In the result, departmental appeal in ITA No.1533/Hyd/2010 is dismissed. 46. To sum up, department’s appeal in ITA No.1530 to 1532/Hyd/2010 in case of Smt. J. Anuradha and in ITA No.1533/Hyd/2010 in case of Sri J. Appa Rao are dismissed. Assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos.1518 and 1519/Hyd/2010 are also dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 29 -11-2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1774
... ...
... ... ..... have any permanent establishment in India, the tax is not to be deducted at sources. Moreover, as per article 15 of DTA agreement between India and USA, the professional services rendered by the lawyers in USA are chargeable only in USA unless they have a fixed base regularly available in India or has stay in India exceeding ninety days in the taxable year. In the present case, the foreign party has confirmed that they do not have any permanent establishment in India nor it is a case where they stay in India is more than ninety days as aforesaid. Accordingly, for the services rendered by the foreign law firm outside India there is no question of deduction of tax on the payments made. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. The appeals of both Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed. Orders pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 26th November, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1773
... ...
... ... ..... the books of accounts of at ₹ 54,94,905/- by the Assessing Officer was not justified and as such, the trading addition worked out at ₹ 8,49,512/- by applying GP rate of 15.46% on the above said estimated undisclosed turnover was rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove, do not see any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and accordingly, do not see any merit in this departmental appeal. 12. In I.T.A.No. 390/Jodh/2013, the issue is similar having identical facts, the only difference is in the figures involved and the GP rates. Therefore, our findings given in respect of appeal in I.T.A.No. 389/Jodh/2013 (supra), shall apply mutatis-mutandis for this case also. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the department. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the department are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 25th November, 2013).
-
2013 (11) TMI 1772
... ...
... ... ..... consideration paid to the assessee. The copy of the assessment order dated 04.05.2007 (supra) in the case of M/s Motta Construction Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2000-01 does indicate a difference in the amount assessed as unexplained cost/expenditure and the unaccounted consideration that has been assessed in the hands of the assessee before us. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set-aside this aspect back to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall re-compute the income from sale of Matunga Property in conformity with the amount of sale consideration considered in the hands of the buyer i.e. M/s. Motta Construction Pvt. Ltd.. Needless to say, while carrying out the aforesaid exercise, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and only thereafter he shall re-determine the total income as per law. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th November, 2013.
........
|
